While confidentiality is important, sometimes silence is hard to justify

By DORSEY WILMARTH

Assistant Managing Editor

TODAY'S DILEMMA: Various professionals, including psychologists and psychiatrists, attorneys, and ministers, sometimes face the ethical dilemma of protecting client confidentiality vs. warning the public about a potentially dangerous person. Should client confidentiality be complete or do these professionals have a greater duty to society?

THE DEBATE: There are rules of conduct that govern many professions, and some of these rules are designed to protect privacy.

However, the needs of society and the need of the individual for privacy can come into conflict. Attorneys, priests, doctors and counselors, and sometimes even journalists, face the dilemma of protecting confidentiality vs. protecting society.

The rules vary from profession to profession, with some groups restricted more than others.

For example, Roman Catholic priests hold the confessional to be sacrosanct. Information gained during this sacrament cannot be divulged. If a person admits to murdering another during confession, the priest is bound by church law to keep that admission confidential.

In contrast, if a person tells his therapist that he has killed another, the therapist is required to report it to authorities.

"The law has spoken to that issue, so we don't have to treat that as an ethical dilemma," said Dr. Diana Rudolph, director of counseling and addiction disorders for the Pavilion.

Counselors and psychologists are obligated by law to notify the authorities if an individual makes threatening statements or confesses to crimes during the session, she said. Patients are notified prior to services and sign a contractual agreement that, for example, were they to confess to a felony crime, the counselor would be obligated to report it. The same rules apply in cases of confessions to child abuse or neglect, she said.

"We do not have the same kind of attorney-client privilege attorneys have," she said. "Almost everything we have can be subpoenaed by the courts."

Amarilloan Charles Davis said that if he were in such a situation, he would warn the public and specifically the person or persons who would be potentially in danger. "Otherwise, client confidentiality should be protected," he said.

Deena Kennann, a licensed vocational nurse in Amarillo, agrees. "While patient confidentiality is a definite must to ensure proper treatment, I believe the professional is morally obligated to report any potentially dangerous person, both for the individual's protection, as well as the general public."

The privilege between attorneys and their clients has been well-dramatized. While reality may be a little different than what you see in the movies, Amarillo attorney Jeff Blackburn said he believes privilege to be an important concept.

"The idea is good in that yes, professionals have a very serious duty to society in general," he said. "The way we fulfill this is by maintaining absolute client confidentiality."

For example, Blackburn said, if a client chose to reveal the location of a dead body to his or her lawyer, it would be, in the short run, beneficial to both law enforcement and the victim's family for the lawyer to violate his client's confidentiality and reveal the information.

In the long run, though, Blackburn said revealing privileged attorney-client information violates one of the most sacred trusts in the American legal system, and in turn, damages the legal system and society as a whole.

"That kind of conduct is not only unethical; it's outrageous," he said. "Lawyers who violate client confidentiality are not deserving of calling themselves lawyers."

While confidentiality is important in certain relationships, Blackburn's extremism does not allow for common sense. Perhaps the dilemma surrounding attorney-client privilege reflects back on our legal system in general. Our system is designed not for discovering the truth, but rather for protecting individuals, even at the expense of the truth. But that is a topic for a future ethical dilemma.

There is no easy answer to this debate; however, professionals of all types must weigh the need for confidentiality vs. the need to protect society. It is hard to justify keeping silent when you have foreknowledge of a threat to society and your silence could result in serious harm.

Dorsey Wilmarth is the assistant managing editor of the Amarillo Globe-News. This column reflects the views of the readers and experts cited, as well as those of the author. The column does not necessarily reflect the views of the Amarillo Globe-News. Staff writer Jason Baker contributed to this column.

SHARE YOUR OPINION: Here's a new ethical dilemma for your consideration. If you would like to express your opinion on this topic or suggest an ethical dilemma for future columns, please select an option at right.

GENDER ROLES: Should women be subservient to their husbands?

TO RESPON BY VOICE MAIL: Call 345-3360 and follow the instructions to record your comments.